(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I assure the hon. Member that as part of this study, and as part of the roll-out of services across the country, we are focusing on the therapeutic support that she describes. We are implementing the Cass review, which recommended this particular trial for this particular purpose, and we will follow the evidence. Of course we look at what other countries are doing, why they are doing it and what research emerges.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend, in particular for his commitment to equal access to healthcare. Will he say a little more about the mental health support available for children and young people involved in the trial, those who will not be able to be in the trial, those who are currently receiving puberty blockers, and those for whom the ban is causing immense stress or worse?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Regardless of whether people are receiving this medication or not, we need to ensure that they receive the right therapeutic support to enable them to have healthy, happy childhoods and to understand themselves, the world they live in and how they relate to it in a way that does not cause them distress or harm. That is my objective in this process.
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I feel it is incumbent on me to speak out on behalf of parents of trans people and, by extension, their children. On a couple of occasions, such parents have come to see me with, frankly, some of the most harrowing cases I have heard as an MP. One family is planning to leave the country. What kind of country have we become where that is even a possibility? One parent’s child, who is currently receiving puberty-blocking drugs and who has been thriving at school and socially as a girl, has in recent months seen her horizons shrinking just at the moment she hoped they would be expanding, as is the right of any young person. As people opine about rights, and debate the apparent clash of rights on this sensitive topic, hon. Members and members of the public would do well to put themselves in the shoes of that girl. How is that young person to feel, knowing that there is a growing hostility towards people like her that is being weaponised, exploited and unleashed?
Although of course it is right that there is rigorous scrutiny of the efficacy of drugs, given the perceived risk of harm, I ask the Minister to consider that thousands of young people are deeply fearful because they are currently on puberty blockers that are now being banned. Just imagine if we suggested taking drugs away that treated a conventional medical issue. That would cause enough fear, but imagine what it must be like to fear that your very essence as a human being is going to be damaged against your will. As others have mentioned, the trial of such drugs will be for 226 young people, but many thousands are waiting to be seen by gender identity services, some of whom are ineligible for the trial anyway. We must put the humanity back into the debate about human rights, especially when they are seen to clash. We must put humanity back into our deliberations and the human back at the centre of our thoughts. Empathy and kindness cannot be drowned out in a debate about rights, and I will continue to speak up for vulnerable people.
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons Chamber
Chris Vince
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When I was a councillor in Harlow, I did a lot of work with my colleague James Griggs, who is now the leader of the Labour group on the council, to push for more defibrillators across Harlow, particularly in public places. Being confident and knowing how to use them are equally important.
I have tried not to get too emotional during this speech, and I might fail in a moment. When I was at uni, a friend of mine, Jude, died when she was only 18 years old—not because of cardiac arrest, but for completely different reasons. I think about all the things that I have done since I was 18. People say that life begins at 40. I do not know about that, but certainly from the slightly—believe it or not—geeky 18-year-old I was to the 42-year-old MP standing here, my life has changed a great deal, and very much for the better. It really saddens me that Jude never got to experience growing up, having a family and having that experience. It also saddens me to think of the many young people, like Clarissa and others, who hon. Members from across the House have mentioned.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a moving and powerful speech about the tragic loss of young lives—all the years that are lost of their lives, their families and so on, and all the suffering that happens when people die so young. I, too, lost a friend whom I met while we were studying master’s degrees at University College at Durham University in 2001. He died in 2012 of an undiagnosed heart condition, and he is a much-loved and missed son, husband, father and dear friend of mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge loss that families and friends feel should inspire us all to seek as much effort as possible from the Government, from scientists and from medics to prevent these often avoidable situations? I continue my life with him in my memory, and I am inspired by everything that Michael McCarthy did and by our friendship. I miss him dearly.
Amanda Hack
The key thing that we have been trying to do in my constituency—and I would encourage other Members to do the same—is to demystify defibrillators. There are some very easy tools online that can show people how to use them, and they are such clever bits of kit that no one should be afraid of looking into it.
John Slinger
Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of charities such as the Our Jay Foundation in my Rugby constituency are critically important? Naomi Rees-Issitt created the Our Jay Foundation in memory of her son Jamie. Not only has it installed hundreds of defibrillators in Rugby and the surrounding area, including bleed control kits, but—to her point—it holds training sessions in the community given by qualified paramedics and nurses. I have attended one of them, and they are lifesavers just as much as the defibs that go into our communities. All of this helps to reduce the number of sudden cardiac deaths in young people.
Amanda Hack
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think the conversation on defibs has been a really interesting one, but that is obviously just part of the solution to cardiac risk in young people. The main point I was trying to make is that, until we can roll out an effective programme of screening, we need to make sure we have the CPR and defibs tools in our toolkit to make sure we can support a person if they are going into cardiac arrest.
Finally, CPR training and knowing where the nearest defib is are important parts of the solution, but when we are looking at cardiac risk in young people, it is about how we make sure that asymptomatic individuals are screened and made aware of information about how they may react if they have an undiagnosed cardiac condition.
I want to put on record my thanks to CRY, the British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK, Brentford FC, Arsenal FC, the East Midlands ambulance service, Kerrie from Vitalise Health and First Aid Training, and all the bodies that have supported me in my questions on health screening, as well as fantastic campaigners such as Hilary. The truth is that we could be doing far more to tackle sudden cardiac death in young people, so why are we not doing so? I would really love to hear from the Minister.
(1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on International Men’s Day. I also pay tribute to her constituent, Philip Pirie; no one can imagine the loss of a child, and it is a testament to him that in the pits of his despair, he has reached out to others.
If ever I am asked when someone is struggling, I always say, “Just talk—help is available.” That would be my attitude today. If someone needs support, they should reach out and find it. Just six months ago, I might not have chosen to speak in this debate at all. Then, in the summer, two events taught me a harsh lesson; they made me realise that reaching out and receiving support is not so easy and, in many cases, not done.
On 13 August, I was driving to work on a normal day. I had been away for a long weekend with the family and had just dropped my kids at the sports camp. I was trying to work out what time I had to leave work to pick them up. As I said, it was an ordinary day. Then the phone rang and everything changed. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was then a Government Whip, telling me that Hefin David, MS for Caerphilly, had died suddenly.
To talk about Hefin in the past tense is surreal. He was someone so full of life—so passionate, so dedicated to his job and to the people of Caerphilly. He had a wide circle of friends. He was someone who knew help was available and would have told anyone else that, but now he was gone.
I think back to our last conversation in July and how normal it was: I was going to Greece and he was going to Benidorm. We both talked about how much we were looking forward to the break. We ended the conversation by saying we would speak when we were back. Surely, I thought, the news that he was gone was not true. But that is the grim reality that all his family and those who loved him have to face on a day-to-day basis.
Then, a month later, on 14 September, while I was settling down for Sunday lunch, a news alert flashed up on my phone telling me and the world that Ricky Hatton, the beloved Manchester boxer and world champion, had been found dead. I had only met Ricky on a few occasions at boxing events, but I was always struck by how polite and down to earth he was—a man who dedicated his post-boxing career to men’s mental health and talked candidly about his suicidal thoughts. He brought joy and excitement to so many people and had seemingly put his problems behind him, but he was found alone at home.
In different ways, both Hefin and Ricky were warriors. One fought passionately in the Senedd for those on the margins of society, and one demonstrated untold bravery in the ring. In the end, outside appearances can, and often do, mask the struggles that men face.
The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. With the rate of male suicide in Wales having risen by 56% in the last 40 years, it has become the joint highest killer of men under 50, with those aged 45 to 49 facing the highest risk. At that stage of life, men are burdened with societal expectations that mandate how they should think and behave. Those expectations are passed down from generation to generation, derived from traditional notions of masculinity that promote strength, self-reliance and emotional restraint.
Acknowledging poor mental health can feel like a confession and lies at odds with this supposed ideal. Rather than being seen as a sign of humanity, it is viewed as a weakness or failure to live up to what a man should be, as opposed to men being seen for what they are: simply human beings. Men are just as likely to experience emotional difficulty in life as anyone else, so why are they expected not to talk about it? As a result, many men are reluctant to seek help and tend to downplay symptoms for fear of appearing weak or vulnerable.
It is important to acknowledge that there are people in society doing important work to address this problem, undo stigma and, more importantly, start a conversation. The Jolly Brew Crew in my constituency is a free men’s mental health group focusing on peer support, reducing stigma and having more meaningful conversations. It provides a place for men of all ages to go, speak openly about their problems and feel supported. It has fostered a sense of community, combating social isolation and loneliness, proving that problems can be solved.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Does he agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned mirror the work of Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, a support group in my constituency who literally go out on walks together? They also run a podcast, which I was on this week. It is all about getting men together so that they can talk about the way they feel. In my view, that is one of the best ways to avoid terrible mental health problems. Boys and young men should always be encouraged to speak to friends and family, and to seek the help of charities and, when they need it, professional help. We can then break the stigma and prevent far more of these terrible cases of suicide.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the group he mentioned. Anything that can be done to reduce the stigma of suicide must be done. We must realise how important this is. One family losing one life to suicide is one family too many. It is time to end the silly stigma about “real men” being this, that or the other. Real men talk about their feelings. We are human and we have got to get away from this stigma.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, groups are incredibly important but they cannot bear the sole responsibility for starting the conversation and providing support. Government must provide more education, support and treatment for mental health. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about health awareness campaigns, which are vital. There are posters of Davina McCall referring to breast cancer to ensure that it is diagnosed earlier than ever. We should take the same approach to suicide.
Suicide is the joint highest killer, alongside accidental poisoning, of men under 50 in Wales. It is ironic that there is so little conversation about such a big killer. That must change and can start with local groups, but should be led by the Government. If the mental health strategy launched today is to work, it must not only address men’s health issues, which have long been ignored, but seek to undo the deep stereotypes that impact men’s likeliness to reach out for help.
Undoing those stereotypes will make it more acceptable for men to receive support in any area of their lives, proving that their struggles can be addressed. There is no stigma or embarrassment in that, only strength. The impact that Government action can have on the stigma surrounding men’s mental health and suicide must not be overlooked. Healthcare systems must better hear and respond to the epidemic of male suicide. I hope the Welsh Government introduce a similar strategy to address those problems.
At a meeting I had with the Men and Boys Coalition charity last week, it revealed the necessity for a men’s health strategy in Wales. I want to echo that message. My constituency has the seventh highest suicide rate in Wales. Figures like that prove the necessity and urgency of a mental health strategy. I know the Minister well and we are friends. As a fellow Welsh MP, I hope he can use his influence to ensure that the Senedd adopts the strategy we have launched today in England.
More importantly, I call for the rhetoric around male suicide to change: compassion, understanding and kindness must be at the heart of whatever we do next. We must use the lessons we have learned from the deaths of others. The solution may involve some uncomfortable, unfamiliar and new conversations, but those conversations could save someone’s life.
I want to end by talking about Ricky Hatton. He fought battles in the ring and fought wars, but the one battle he could not face, against himself, he lost. Let us hope that there are fewer people who feel like that. I urge the Government to take action.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on such a vital topic. I pay tribute to her constituent Philip Pirie, who has been such a strong advocate on this issue. His campaigning and advocacy has absolutely helped us to shape where we are today.
I am also very grateful to other hon. Members for their valuable and profoundly moving and honest contributions. We heard many examples, some very high profile and in many cases household names, such as Ricky Hatton and Gary Speed, and others heroes from people’s local communities. Their heroic families have done so much to reach out and campaign on these issues. I knew Hefin David very well. The tragedy of Hefin is impossible to put into words, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) really did pay a fitting tribute to him. and I am sure his family greatly appreciate that.
Every suicide is a profound tragedy, leaving families, friends and communities devastated. As we work to improve prevention and support, we must also confront the stigma that too often stops people seeking help, speaking openly or being met with understanding. That is why we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide and ensure fewer lives are lost to suicide, as well as working across Government to improve support for those who have self-harmed or who are bereaved by suicide.
Our manifesto committed to a renewed focus on preventing suicides, as one of the biggest killers in this country. Poor mental health is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide, but we know that suicide is complex and that there are a range of other influencing factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address, including those identified in our suicide prevention strategy: financial difficulty and economic adversity, substance misuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, physical illness, and social isolation and loneliness. These are complex pressures, and we are working across Government and beyond to better understand them and deliver on our commitment to tackle them.
Beyond the risk factors and priority groups, one of the key visions of the suicide prevention strategy is to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, so that people feel able to seek help, including through the routes that work best for them. That includes raising awareness that suicide is not inevitable. Around a quarter of people who take their own life are in contact with mental health services. Through the delivery of the 10-year health plan, we will transform the mental health system to ensure that people are accessing the right support at the right time.
Nearly three quarters of people who take their own life are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but many are in contact with wider services. We will ensure that our delivery of the 10-year health plan, which focuses on intervening early so that people can access high quality and compassionate support at an earlier stage, also considers how we can support those at risk of suicide when they are not in contact with those services. Our cross-Government approach to suicide prevention will help us to make the most of key interaction points both within and outside public services and address risk factors for suicide for everyone, not just those in contact with the NHS.
Steady progress has been made through joint working with our colleagues in the NHS, the voluntary sector and academia and with a wide range of other partners, all of whom play a key, crucial and valuable role in prevention, early intervention and support.
John Slinger
On the point about the various organisations, governmental or otherwise, that are involved, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Rugby borough council, which has partnered with the charity I mentioned earlier, Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, to put plaques on benches across the council’s parks? These support plaques state:
“There’s no need to sit alone.”
They also encourage local businesses to sponsor them, which is a really good example of how the private sector, local government and the charitable sector can work together to make sure more men can gain access to support—not necessarily by calling a phone line, but just when they are in the park.
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rugby borough council. That sounds like an excellent initiative that we should explore in other parts of the country, if that is suitable. He is right that there is almost an ecosystem of different groups now. In my constituency we have the Men’s Shed and a fantastic walking group for men called Mal’s Marauders, which does fantastic work. That is great to see, and I am a huge fan and supporter of what it does and stands for.
A lot of this is about having that organic development at the grassroots, because that is where it is best placed; it is not always for the Government or the authorities to come in—in some ways, that might not be appropriate. We should do whatever we can to encourage these things, and our £3.6 million programme and our £3 million programme are absolutely about being co-designed with these groups; they are not a top-down process at all, but something that should be organic and from the bottom up.
It is important to highlight the fact that this debate falls on Wednesday 19 November, which is both International Men’s Day and the day when we are launching the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Despite huge progress over the past century, men still live too much of their lives in poor health and die too young. Our vision for the strategy is simple yet ambitious: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy includes tangible actions to improve access to healthcare; provide the right support to enable men to make healthier choices; develop healthy living and working conditions; foster strong social, community and family networks; address societal norms; and tackle health challenges and conditions. By addressing the broader barriers that prevent men from accessing support, including the stigma surrounding mental health and suicide, we can take meaningful steps towards reducing avoidable deaths and ensuring that every man feels able to seek help when he needs it most.
Today, through the men’s health strategy, we are launching a groundbreaking partnership with the Premier League to tackle male suicide and improve health literacy, building on the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide campaign.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for securing this important debate. There can be no overstating the importance of publicly accessible defibrillators. If used within the first three to five minutes of a cardiac arrest, as hon. Members have said, they can increase the chance of survival by up to 70%. For a device that costs only a few thousand pounds, that is a truly remarkable statistic. I was told that stat by a remarkable constituent of mine, Naomi Rees-Issitt, at a defibrillator and CPR training session that she had arranged for the community. She knows more about the critical importance of defibrillators than most people, because she set up the OurJay Foundation after the tragic death of her son Jamie, who suffered a cardiac arrest. Although a defibrillator was nearby, it was inaccessible.
It is clear that a lack of accessible devices continues to hinder lifesaving intervention, but thanks to the incredible work of Naomi, her family and the OurJay Foundation, Rugby now has a significant number of accessible defibrillators. But it should not fall solely to charities and grieving families to bear the cost of this vital equipment. When the OurJay Foundation was established, Rugby had just seven 24/7 defibrillators for a town of 80,000 people. Today, thanks to its efforts, the number has risen to more than 170. They are triggered six to seven times a week. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving access to automated external defibrillators, as hon. Members have referred to, so I will not rehearse that. The Government have also committed to providing a defibrillator in every state-funded school in England. Sadly, there remains no legal requirement for organisations to make AEDs available on their premises, although many have done so voluntarily. Could the Minister comment on whether the Government are considering this?
Naomi and the OurJay Foundation are also campaigning for AEDs to be put in every police car. Recent Home Office funding, which was very welcome, has enabled additional defibs for every force. Warwickshire police has secured 30 new defibs, which it is putting in specialist operations vehicles. I saw that for myself, alongside Naomi, and met the officers whose dedication to the public I commend. The urgency is underlined by recent figures from the Resuscitation Council, which show that out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK have risen to 40,000 each year. The survival rate remains a devastating one in 10.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for bringing this important discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) rightly points out the survival challenge. We know that survival is improved with quick access to these vital devices. Many Members have described deserts of access to these devices in their constituencies. In my own constituency there are only four devices per 10,000 people, so 70% of people do not have access in the three to five-minute timescale that my hon. Friend recommended. Does he agree that to improve that stat, it is vital that we get more devices in the community and, fundamentally, that we make it cheaper to access these devices for community groups, local and national Government and the police forces that he mentions?
John Slinger
I agree entirely. Obviously, there is not an unlimited amount of money, but we—whether Government, hon. Members, charities or businesses—must do everything we can to ensure more devices in our communities.
I will conclude by saying that Naomi is calling for Jamie’s law. This would make it mandatory for all police vehicles to carry defibrillators. I am sure that hon. Members in and beyond this room would agree that across our country we should do everything we can to increase the number of defibrillators, and am sure that I am not alone in having lost a friend who died young from a heart attack. I pay tribute to Naomi Rees-Issitt for her effort and her dedication to saving lives in the community in memory of her son. She is an example to all of us of taking action to save lives.
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
As I outlined in my initial response and further to the written ministerial statement, we have asked for an independent review of the process and will report back as soon as possible with a realistic deadline for that. With regard to the strikes, we will continue to be open to discussing the avoidance of those strikes, and I hope that the Opposition will support us in that.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given that the summer recess is imminent, will the Minister use this opportunity to update the House on the number of additional appointments and, more importantly, the number by which the NHS waiting lists have fallen under this Government? Does she agree that it would be very nice if the Conservative party addressed the crisis in which they left our NHS? It is a mess that this Labour Government are proud to be clearing up.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a superb advocate for his constituents. I met him again yesterday as he advocated for services in his constituency—that is the focus of Labour Members. He is absolutely right; as I said in my statement, this is part of the overall mess that we inherited from the Conservatives. As I said in my previous response on this issue, the problems outlined by Lord Darzi are wide and deep. It is still shocking, after a year in government, to be faced with the level of disaster that was left to us after a complete abdication of responsibility for sorting out the problems. We will continue to focus on getting more of the appointments that people so need and on reducing waiting lists, which is what our constituents expect.
(6 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this incredibly important debate; it has been absolutely wonderful listening to how it has been conducted. As has been said, this debate is often overlooked, and it is occurring in World Continence Week.
Bladder and bowel control issues are taboo and embarrassing, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for sharing his experience. He will not be alone, and I am sure there are many in this Chamber who have suffered the same thing, as have our constituents. We need to talk openly about this issue. We cannot hide it in silence as it affects so many people. One in three women in the UK have a urinary incontinence issue, and half of those are likely to suffer from it due to pregnancy, childbirth or hormonal changes linked to the menopause—another taboo topic.
Let us go through the stages and where some issues still remain. How are bladder and bowel control issues detected and diagnosed? I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for her expertise, but the University of Aberdeen has found that invasive bladder pressure tests, which are often painful and incredibly uncomfortable, are not necessarily necessary. Researchers have found that non-invasive testing, including the things that my hon. Friend has described, such as pelvic floor exercises, should be made more available to patients. That is just one of the issues.
Another issue is surgical implants. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his incredible expertise on this topic, and I thank him for the work he does to help to protect women. The complications that have affected hundreds if not thousands of women, who are rightly outraged, have been described as barbaric. We must do more to see that those women are compensated, but no amount of compensation will ever make up for the years of pain and physical and emotional damage. This issue needs to be treated with respect and care, and the treatment options need to be empowered, so that people feel they can be empowered to prevent these things from occurring. I pay tribute to the Boys Need Bins campaign, which I have spoken with—it has been absolutely incredible—because men too suffer from incontinence. We need bins in public spaces.
How can we help people to live their lives to the full? My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who is no longer in his place, made the point that austerity and cuts to local government mean that many public toilets have been closed. Thankfully, in my area of Gravesham, the local council has increased the number of public toilets, including by opening one by the bus hub, so that people know about them and can plan regular breaks if they are needed. We need to ensure that there are spaces so that people feel empowered and confident to leave their homes, because we cannot have more people who stand alone.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for raising this very important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and others mentioned the importance of greater and better provision of public conveniences. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage cafés and other organisations in town centres to make better provision for people suffering from these issues? Perhaps some of the campaigns that have been alluded to can help to make those spaces available. They should by no means replace what public conveniences should do, but having such places in town centres can assist vulnerable people.
Dr Sullivan
I agree. The community toilet scheme in Gravesham has been a good success. However, the issue of course comes down to vandalism. Councils cannot see this as an easy way to cut money. It needs to be a statutory duty, so I support the bid of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway to make it a statutory duty to provide public toilets in those spaces.
No one deserves to be lonely or locked in at home, so I hope that this debate is the first step to opening the door. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for bringing this issue to the attention of the world.
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I must declare an interest: I am a co-founder of Action on World Health.
I have to say, I find the tone of moral superiority in the Chamber this afternoon almost unbearable. Members clearly believe they are better human beings than those outside who choose to pursue activities that Members perhaps would not pursue. It would come as a bit of a shock, I suppose, to some in this Chamber, but there are some of us who like a smoke—we do. We even go for a few pints in a pub, we have a punt on the horses and I am even tempted to have the odd doughnut—I know; that is perhaps the naughtiest of all. We want to have fun. We want to make our own minds up. This place can educate us, tell us, give us the facts, but the idea that it should make those decisions for other people shows me that the spirit of Oliver Cromwell is alive and well.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a responsible Government should seek to improve public health, particularly the public health of the younger generation?
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
For me, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is a landmark opportunity to improve health outcomes for people in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, as well as people across the whole United Kingdom. Almost 80,000 people die each year from smoking-related illness, and many of my constituents have told me they wish that they had never started smoking in the first place. With this Bill, we draw a line under the public health tragedy that tobacco has caused over too many decades. On top of the tragedy of 80,000 deaths, every year smoking costs the NHS more than £3 billion and sees our economy lose more than £18 billion in productivity. This Bill is the bold action that our country needs and that my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun will benefit from.
I am proud that this Labour Government are standing up to the tobacco lobby with the banning of tobacco products for anyone born in or after 2009. That radical change will save lives. In my constituency, I have seen people as young as 12 puffing on vapes on their way to school and when returning home. That is a huge concern for the health and wellbeing of those young people, and the ease of access that they have to vapes is simply unacceptable.
John Slinger
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She refers to the risk that young people will increasingly use vapes. Does she agree that the ban on advertising vapes cannot come quickly enough? In my constituency of Rugby, I see shops that look like sweet shops and whose names sound like sweet shops that are clearly designed to encourage and frankly entice young people to take up this unpleasant habit.
Lillian Jones
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points.
While some argue that vapes may be less harmful than smoking tobacco products, our new generation should not be encouraged to become dependent on the addictive effects of nicotine. This Bill does exactly the right thing in giving the Secretary of State the power to ban flavoured vapes that are very obviously marketed to children and young people. Researching the flavours on offer, I found cola gummies flavour, pink lemonade flavour, strawberry chew flavour and tropic bubblegum flavour, to name just a few. Can anyone really claim that those flavours and the countless others on offer are not aimed at children? Many Members from both sides of the House would raise more than an eyebrow at that claim.
This Bill will regulate the wild west of vaping, which we have seen expand on our high streets over the last decade. It will also address the issue of poor-quality vapes, which are a safety concern, including single-use vapes, and end the scourge of these products littering our streets and communities. As someone with a background of 23 years in the NHS, I know the difference that this Bill will make; it will save lives and help to save our environment, and I will be proud to vote for it.
Well, let me rephrase it. I tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are two things about this legislation—I have got it right now—and the first is its core objective and the second is the means by which that objective is met. I am, at the moment, talking about the means by which it is met, and I will say a little more about that when I address some of the amendments in my name and those of other Members. When we pass measures in this House—when we make laws—we should concentrate on both their purpose and their effect. If we do not do that, we are not doing our job as lawmakers. My concern about the Bill is that the effect will be compromised by the means, regardless of its purpose.
I entirely endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about plastic filters. I think that her new clause 2 would be a helpful addition to the Bill, and I should be amazed if the Minister did not embrace and adopt it. Perhaps it could be tabled as a Government amendment, but we may vote on it later. I am sure that the Government Whips will want to whip their Members to support it, because it is environmentally right, terribly sensible and entirely deliverable. It would oblige the industry to do the right thing and create filters that are biodegradable and which, as we heard earlier, are produced in immense numbers.
I have mentioned amendment 4, in the name of the right hon. Member for East Antrim, which deals with this nonsense of the rolling age of consent. It is a straightforward amendment that proposes that the age of consent should be 21—a considerable increase on where we are now—and that retailers must observe that. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) said that the matter was already being dealt with because there was already an age of consent. Yes, there is one age of consent, but not a series of ages of consent, with the need to assess people’s age presumably by some formal means. Perhaps they will have to take their passports with them every time they go to the newsagent to buy their papers and their ounce of Golden Virginia, or whatever else.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I thought asked a terribly weak question during Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today. Let us see whether he can do better now.
John Slinger
It is not very pleasant of the right hon. Gentleman to say that, but I thank him for letting me intervene. Regarding the age of consent and the amendment calling for it to be raised to 21, does he not accept that the tobacco industry would merely target its immense marketing power on those who were over 21, and that that that could have a very bad effect on public health?
The key thing about tobacco—as the hon. Member for Worthing West, the expert on public health who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman, will no doubt confirm—is that people tend to acquire the habit early and, as the hon. Lady said, cannot break it. Not many people are non-smokers at 30 and become smokers at 40. The vast majority of smokers acquire the habit early in their lives. My father probably started smoking at 13. He gave up overnight when he was 75, because the price of Golden Virginia went up. I said to him, “Do you feel any better,” and he replied, “I didn’t feel ill when I smoked and I don’t feel ill now”—but that is another matter.
This issue really relates to young people and children in particular, and that brings me to vapes. I support much of what is in the Bill about them. Schools have an immense problem with vaping. Headteachers and teachers tell me that it is something that they have to be religious in scrutinising, because these things can find their way into schools so easily—in someone’s bag, for instance. Rather as with mobile phones, we must enforce a ban on vapes in schools with rigour. I think that the measures being introduced in the Bill will reinforce that, so I share the Government’s ambition in that respect.
On new clause 12, which stands in my name, I again find it hard to believe that the Government will not accept it willingly, because it simply says that we should review how effective the legislation is. It is probably true that every Bill we debate ought to have something like this attached to it, because it is a good idea—once a Bill has been published, debated, considered and passed into law—that it should be regularly reviewed in such a way.
I understand that the movers of this Bill, its advocates and its enthusiasts believe that they are doing the right thing, and I am not unsympathetic to some of their ambitions. I do sometimes—often indeed—wish that this House was coloured by common sense as liberally as it is peppered with piety. None the less, let me be generous and say that I know that the Minister and others feel that they are doing something noble. However, it is absolutely right, when we legislate in this House, that we do so with the greatest care, with clear and desirable purposes of the kind I mentioned a moment or two ago, appropriate means and measurable effects.
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons Chamber
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing forward his important Bill. I also commend hon. Members across this House for their powerful and moving speeches, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who showed that the love for a sibling or child persists forever and can be harnessed to bring about change.
I am speaking today because my constituent Mr Peter Realf contacted me about his son Stephen, who was training to be an RAF pilot when he was diagnosed with astrocytoma. He was just 19. Tragically, despite his cancer being described as “low-grade” and despite receiving treatment that prolonged his life, he died six years later, aged just 26. I cannot imagine the pain and sense of loss felt by Stephen’s family and friends, and my heart goes out to them and all those who have faced the consequences of this cruel disease.
Mr Realf and his family have campaigned tirelessly since Stephen’s death to address the baffling paradox that despite brain tumours killing more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer, and despite them robbing patients of more years of their life than any other cancer, only a fraction of the Government’s research funding into cancer is used for brain tumours at just 1.37% of national spend, according to the charity Brain Tumour Research.
Stephen Realf’s case is stark: a talented, hard-working and clearly impressive young man who died young, losing perhaps 50 years of life and 50 years of potential. A huge public petition and an article written by Stephen’s sister Maria led in 2015 to the then-new Petitions Committee of this House conducting its first inquiry. I challenge any right hon. and hon. Member to read the report’s conclusions from 2016—nine years ago—and not to conclude that, in general, little has improved since then.
We should be deeply concerned—though perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has indicated, the appropriate emotion is a stronger one. We hear of the additional £40 million pledged by the last Government and how, according to reports, £28 million of it is yet to be released to scientists. After one of the relevant authorities, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, came to see us at the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours recently, my colleagues and the campaigners, patients and families present still could not fathom just why the money had not been spent in all those years.
I am relatively new to this place, but I have been observing politics for a long time, and something about this issue does not fit. It does not feel right. Something is profoundly wrong. Where there should be outrage, there appears to be relative indifference—not to death and suffering, of course, but to the need for radical changes to get money flowing. Where there should be urgency among the authorities—for, after all, people are dying, often young—there appears to be a degree of inertia, and where there should be action, we often get lost in the chilling snowstorm of bureaucracy.
I am not impugning the decency, compassion or professionalism of officials, researchers or clinicians; they are of course committed to helping to cure, treat and prevent cancer. However, as with other examples of institutional failure, it does not take overt malice, just the absence of grip and tenacity in the face of injustice, or of challenging the status quo, for good things not to happen, or even for bad and preventable outcomes to occur.
I do not know why progress does not seem to be happening. What reasons could there possibly be for the continuing paradox of the underfunding of rare cancer research? We must find out the reasons and overcome those forces, or perhaps even vested interests, because the stakes could not be higher. Little has changed in terms of treatment and survivability since the 1960s. Patients with brain tumours do not have time on their side, as many hon. Members have said; sadly, most of those diagnosed die within five years.
The following statistics from Brain Tumour Research are stark, but, before I read them, I should say that I am glad of the progress on more common cancers, which have affected my family as they have every family. Brain Tumour Research states:
“Brain tumours kill more children than leukaemia. Brain tumours kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer and more women under 35 than breast cancer. Incidences of and deaths from brain tumours are increasing… At the current rate of spending, it could take 100 years for brain cancer to catch up with developments in other diseases and find a cure.”
That is why the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is so needed. It offers practical steps to get more funding into research to take on and defeat those cancers.
Finally, I know my ministerial colleagues want only the best for patients, so I gently encourage them, if they have not already done so, to ask this question of officials: “Why is it that research into these cancers, which cause so much death and suffering among the young and rob so many people of so many years of life, are receiving so little funding?” Ministers should keep asking until they get a satisfactory answer. MPs should keep asking until we get a satisfactory answer. We should work together, cross-party if possible, to overcome obstacles and we should certainly pass this Bill. The pain, loss, concern and even anger must be channelled into urgent, substantive action. We owe it to the past, current and future victims of rare cancers and to their families.
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, and I echo what he said about the talents of people at NHS England. I did not take this decision with the Prime Minister lightly. Indeed, it was not my instinct coming into government, but it has been shaped by what I have seen and experienced over the past eight months. Clinical leadership is vital, and that is not just doctors; it is also nurses and other clinical leadership. We have a brilliant chief nursing officer, who remains in place and will be part of that clinical leadership team. I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not want any political interference in what should be decisions for clinicians. What we need is the right political leadership to give that clinical leadership the tools, power and freedom to do the job that only they can do, and that they do best.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
This welcome reform cannot come quickly enough in Warwickshire where councillors, local health campaigners, I and others have been making the case for a doctor-led urgent treatment centre at our local hospital, the Hospital of St Cross, to complement the excellent nurse-led and GP out of hours service, but many of my constituents are concerned about having to travel to the larger hospital in Coventry and the long waiting times they find there. The integrated care board has a review of urgent care under way in Warwickshire, but I still do not know when it will be completed and my constituents want to know when urgent care at our local hospital will be upgraded. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reforms to NHS England should equip ICBs more effectively to respond to local needs?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his perseverance in bobbing for so long; they should prescribe it on the NHS. I say to my hon. Friend that this is why I strongly believe in local decision making to make sure services are configured and designed to meet the differing needs of local communities while providing the same standard and quality of care in every part of the country. He also described the frustration of people who will often, including in the future, necessarily be living some distance from their general hospitals; that is why we have to shift out of hospital with the NHS being not just the national health service but a neighbourhood health service, with as many services as possible closer to people’s homes and indeed in people’s homes. That is the exciting future that is up for grabs, and that is the future we will realise thanks to the reforms we are making today. I am delighted they have been greeted with such support right across the House.